Legal Research
Cases
Estate Cockell; Cole v Paisley

Estate Cockell; Cole v Paisley

Link copied

Case Copied 4 April 2016 31 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Estate Cockell; Cole v Paisley [2016] NSWSC 349
Hearing dates: 22, 23 and 24 March 2016
Date of orders: 04 April 2016
Decision date: 04 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity - Probate List
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
Order that a grant of probate in common form be confirmed by a grant in solemn form to the recipient of the initial grant.

Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Wills, probate and administration – Making a will – Testamentary capacity – Soundness of mind, memory and understanding – Knowledge and approval – Suspicious circumstances rule – History of Mental Illness – Will valid
SUCCESSION – Wills, probate and administration – Distinction between grant in common form and grant in solemn form – Application for revocation of grant – Principles applicable – Onus of proof – Case management, substance over form – Confirmation of grant in common form as solemn form grant – Practice – Available forms of orders
Legislation Cited: Guardianship Act 1987 NSW
Succession Act 2006 NSW
Trustee Act 1925 NSW
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW
Cases Cited: Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5QB 549 at 565
Barry v Butlin (1838) 2 Moo PC 480; 12 ER 1089
Bates v Messner (1967) 67 SR (NSW) 187 at 189 and 191-192
Boyce v Bunce [2015] NSWSC 1924 at [45]-[46]
Calverley v Green (1984) 155 CLR 242 at 264
Estate Kouvakas [2014] NSWSC 786 at [3]; [203]-[210]; ] [218-[227], [249]; [260]; [284]-[291]; and [292]-[321]
Estate Wight; Wight v Robinson [2013] NSWSC 1229 at [18]-[19]
In the goods of William Loveday [1900] P 154 at 156
Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519 at 528
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Fairlie-Cunninghame (1993) 32 NSWLR 377
Re Eger; Heilprin v Eger (4 February 1985) BC 8500997 at 72-74
Re Estate of Wai Fun Chan, deceased [2015] NSWSC 1107 at [18]-[24]
Re Hodges; Shorter v Hodges (1988) 14 NSWLR 698 at 704E-707G
Richardson v Reardon [2006] NSWSC 1252 at [19]-[21]
Stanley v Stanley [2000] NSWSC 1133 at [11] and [33]-[34]
Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757
Vacuum Oil Pty Co Limited v Stockdale (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 239 at 243-244
Williamson v Spelleken [1977] Qd R 152
Woodhead v Perpetual Trustee Co. Limited (1987) 11 NSWLR 267
Woodley-Page v Symons (1987) 217 ALR 25 at 35
Texts Cited: Butterworths’ Succession Law and Practice (NSW) case number [13, 001]
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Nona Cole
Defendant: Douglas Robert Paisley (in his capacity as Executor of the Will of the late William George Cockell)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: M Gorrick
Defendant: JE Richards
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mooney & Kennedy
Defendant: Douglas Paisley & Emery

File Number(s): 2014/00153134

Judgment

OVERVIEW

At core, these proceedings require determination of competing claims to representation, and beneficial entitlement, to a small deceased estate.
The plaintiff (Nona Cole) is a maternal aunt of the deceased (William George (“Bill”) Cockell) and, as such, a person entitled (under the Succession Act 2006 NSW) to participate in the estate as a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Estate Cockell; Cole v Paisley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 349
Decision Date: 04 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Estate Cockell; Cole v Paisley involved a dispute over the validity of a will, where the executor sought to revoke the grant in common form of the will and have it confirmed in solemn form. The dispute arose from concerns about the testator's testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of the will's contents, given his history of mental illness. The court had to determine whether the suspicious circumstances rule applied, and if so, whether the will was valid despite those circumstances.

The legal issues included the application of the suspicious circumstances rule, the distinction between a grant in common form and a solemn form grant, and the principles governing the revocation of a grant and the confirmation of a grant in solemn form. The court had to consider whether the testator had the necessary soundness of mind, memory, and understanding to make a valid will, and whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will negated its validity. The court also had to consider the onus of proof in revocation applications and the importance of substance over form in case management.

The court found that the suspicious circumstances rule did not apply as the executor had not demonstrated that the testator lacked testamentary capacity or knowledge and approval of the will's contents. The court confirmed the grant in common form as a solemn form grant, stating that the form of the grant was a matter of procedure and did not affect the validity of the will. The court held that the onus of proof lay with the party seeking revocation and that the principles of case management emphasised substance over form. The court ultimately found in favour of the executor, confirming the grant in solemn form and dismissing the application to revoke the grant in common form.

The final orders included the confirmation of the grant in solemn form, the dismissal of the application to revoke the grant in common form, and the direction that the executor proceed with the administration of the estate in accordance with the will. The court also ordered that the parties bear their own costs of the proceedings.

Orders